Bail Application No.943/2024.
MHCC020059032024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MUMBAI,
AT GR. MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 943 OF 2024.
IN
C.R. NO. 121 OF 2024.

Abdul Malik Abdul Salim Shaikh
…Applicant.

Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
(At the instance of Sion Police Station,
Vide C.R.No.121/2024).

…Respondent.

Appearances :Ld. Adv. Mr. S. Z. Khatib for the Applicant/accused.
Ld. APP. Mr. Abhijeet Gondwal for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H. THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
DR. A. A. JOGLEKAR (C.R.NO.37)
DATED : 18TH APRIL, 2024.
ORAL ORDER
By this application the applicant Abdul Malik Abdul Salim
Shaikh being accused in C.R.No.121/2024 registered with Sion Police
Station for the offences punishable under Section 379 of the Indian
Page 1 of 5
Bail Application No.943/2024.
Penal Code, (hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”) seeks bail under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short,
“CrPC”). This is an application preferred by the applicant/accused
post filing of charge-sheet.
THE CASE OF PROSECUTION IN SHORT ENSUES AS UNDER;
2.

It is the case of the prosecution that, as on 03.04.2024, at
about 6.22 pm, the informant was returning back to his house and
that while alighting into the bus at Rani Laxmibai bus stop, Dr. B.A.
road, Uttarvahini, Sion, Mumbai, accused took out/snatched the
iPhone 11 mobile from the right pocket of the informant’s pant. Thus,
the informant realized that somebody was stealing his phone and
thus he screamed and the mob thereby caught the accused and called
the police. Thus, offence was lodged under the section ibid.

3.

Ld.

Advocate
for
applicant
states
that,
the
applicant/accused is falsely implicated, investigation has concluded,
recovery is already effected and is planted.

Further, the
applicant/accused is behind bars for more than 10 days and it causes
hardships to his family. Ld. advocate further stated that the
applicant/accused further undertakes that he wont enter into the said
area if enlarged on bail if directed by this Court for such limited
period. Thus the Ld. Advocate for the applicant/accused states that
further custodial detention is not necessitated. Hence, the Ld.
Advocate for applicant prayed for enlarging the applicant on bail.

Page 2 of 5
Bail Application No.943/2024.
4.

Per contra the Ld. Prosecutor has filed their reply vide
Exh.2 and inter alia have resisted the application on various grounds.
It is categorically stated that the applicant/accused is a record
criminal and is caught by the mob on the spot. Further the
investigation is under progress. The prosecution also has brought on
record similar 7 criminal antecedents to the discredit of the
applicant/accused. It is stated that, traces of similar crimes pertaining
to theft at the bus stop are also under investigation and that if the
applicant/accused is enlarged on bail it might hamper the course of
investigation. Ld. Prosecutor further apprehends for abscondance,
tampering of evidence and threatening to prosecution witnesses.
Hence, the Ld. Prosecutor prayed for rejection of application.

5.

Heard Ld. Advocate for applicant and Ld. APP for the State.
Perused the application and reply.

6.

The
gravamen
of
indictment
pertaining
to
the
applicant/accused propel for the incident of theft which has occurred
at the public place, more specifically in a public transport vehicle.
Furthermore, the applicant/accused is caught by the mob/copassengers who were travelling in the same bus. Furthermore, the
applicant/accused himself vide clause (h) of the grounds states that
he is likely to jump the bail.

This ipso-facto dis-entitles the
applicant/accused for any such relief of enlargement on bail.
7.

Moreover, while deciding an application for bail it is settled
that the Court is required to see whether the prima-facie case exists
Page 3 of 5
Bail Application No.943/2024.
or not. It is not necessary to make roving enquiry or examining the
merits of prosecution case.
8.

Considering the fulcrum of arguments advanced by the Ld.
Advocate for applicant it is palpably clear that, the applicant/accused
himself has stated for jumping of bail. Therefore, the active
participation of
the applicant/accused is apparently
located.

Therefore, there is every possibility that, the applicant/accused might
tamper the prosecution evidence. Apart from the same, as stated
supra, there is an abysmal track record to the discredit of the
applicant/accused. Investigation is at a nascent stage and thus
enlarging the applicant/accused will naturally derail the momentum
of investigation. Therefore, I do not find this as a fit case for grant of
bail. In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, I hold that, the application
deserves no consideration. Hence, order infra :ORDER
Bail Application No.943/2024 stands rejected and
disposed of accordingly.

DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date : 18.04.2024.

Digitally signed by
DR. ABHAY
AVINASH
JOGLEKAR
Date: 2024.04.19
11:33:18 +0530
(Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR)
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay (C.R.No.37)
Dictated on
: 18.04.2024.
Transcribed on : 18.04.2024.
HHJ signed on : 19.04.2024.

Page 4 of 5
Bail Application No.943/2024.

“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
Upload Time
Name of Stenographer
19.04.2024
11.32 a.m.

Mahendrasing D. Patil
Stenographer (Grade-I)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
Date of Pronouncement
JUDGMENT/ORDER
HHJ Dr. A. A. JOGLEKAR
(Court Room No. 37)
of
18.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
19.04.2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER
on
19.04.2024
uploaded
Page 5 of 5